Perhaps it should not be surprising that the overarching issue
in the presidential campaign, the 800-pound gorilla lurking behind
every campaign appearance, is getting little real attention from
either major-party candidate and little serious coverage in the
media.
I am talking, of course, about the progress - or lack thereof -
in the war in Iraq.
Political campaigns are more often driven by polls than by the
real problems that face the country, and the differences between
President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry on how to handle the
apparently serious deterioration in Iraq sound more stylistic than
substantive. Moreover, this election is likely to hinge more on
perceptions in 15 "battleground" states than on attitudes captured
in national polls.
So it's unclear in what way Iraq could emerge as a significant
election issue. Until now, President Bush, especially since the
Republican convention, outpolls Kerry on most issues related to
the war, such as the capacity to serve as a wartime leader.
But if things get significantly worse in Iraq in a way that captures
public attention in the next few weeks, it could hurt the president.
Or it could have a don't-change-horses effect and bolster his support.
It all depends, as they say in the military, on the situation and
the terrain.
IT'S TOUGH ASSESSING
THE WAR ON THE GROUND
The problem with trying to assess the impact of Iraq on the presidential
campaign is that it is almost impossible for most voters to assess
the situation objectively. Media reports, even including interviews
with Iraqi citizens rather than the expected heavy coverage of battles,
bombings and deaths, by their very nature tend to be anecdotal rather
than systematic.
Official government reports tend to put the best face on things,
stressing measurable signs of progress like schools rebuilt, hospitals
reopened and the like.
The Wall Street Journal's opinion page, a reliable supporter of
the war from the beginning, last Monday ran a long article by Australian
blogger Arthur Chrenkoff highlighting "some of the stories you probably
didn't hear" over the past two weeks that reflect progress. And
it is undoubtedly true that an Iraqi commission is making progress
toward holding elections in January, that there has been a marriage
boom in Iraq, reflecting some optimism, that the postal service
has been improved, that the Baghdad stock exchange is due for a
technological renovation, that increasing amounts of foreign humanitarian
aid are coming in, and that public support for the insurgency is
waning.
But these numerically measurable "input" factors may or may not
have a genuine positive impact on ordinary Iraqis.
And they may be of little real significance if security is so shaky
that most Iraqis don't feel safe leaving their homes, or if Iraqis
themselves don't perceive that progress is being made.
From a security perspective, last week was not good news, at least
as reflected in stories that made headlines. Last Sunday featured
some of the fiercest fighting in months in the capital of Baghdad,
with 13 people killed (including a Palestinian reporter working
for Saudi TV who was killed on camera, groaning, "I'm going to die,
I'm going to die") and at least 60 wounded in one incident, and
100 more killed in other battles.
On Monday U.S. fighter planes targeted Fallujah, killing 20 and
wounding 40. More foreigners have been kidnapped and a videotape
was released of a Turkish truck driver having his throat cut. On
Wednesday a car bomb outside a police station in Baghdad killed
59 and wounded more than 100 people. Fifteen Americans were killed
in a week.
On Thursday came news of three decapitated bodies found near Baghdad,
along with leaks about a classified National Intelligence Estimate
from the National Intelligence Council that takes a generally pessimistic
tone, with the worst-case scenario of civil war by the end of 2005.
Last week's Newsweek magazine tries to offer a little perspective.
"The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per day on U.S. forces
in August - the worst monthly average since Bush's flight-suited
visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003."
The attacks are coming across a wider area of Iraq and increasing
numbers of U.S. personnel are suffering gunshot wounds, suggesting
they are facing armed and organized groups of insurgents rather
than the occasional lone saboteur. All this suggests that the organized
insurgency against U.S. occupation is increasing alarmingly and
dramatically.
American - and to some extent Iraqi government - forces face the
classic dilemma. Given the technological and tactical superiority
of American forces, they could probably inflict a military defeat
on Muqtada al-Sadr's militia forces and other insurgents. But a
"scorched-earth" campaign that inflicts many deaths will almost
certainly create more resentment and more, perhaps even more determined,
insurgents.
THINK TANK MEASURES
WHAT IRAQIS ARE THINKING
The most comprehensive effort I have seen to assess progress in
Iraq in a relatively systematic way (aside from a good piece by
James Fallows in the October Atlantic magazine) comes from the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, a fairly establishment
nonpartisan think tank (former Sen. Sam Nunn chairs the advisory
committee) that started a Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project when
the war began.
The data in the report, "Progress or Peril? Measuring Iraq's Reconstruction"
(www.csis.org/isp/pcr/ 0409_progressperil.pdf), were collected from
several sources: media (15 primary sources, 40 secondary), public
sources (17, including official groups like the Coalition Provisional
Authority, AID, Central Command and UN agencies), public opinion
polls of Iraqis conducted by 16 different outfits and the center's
own interviews conducted by seven trained Iraqis in 15 different
cities.
All these data were directed at answering five different questions
from the perspective of ordinary Iraqis. These had to do with security
("I feel secure in my home and in my daily activities"); governance
and participation ("I have a say in how Iraq is run"); economic
opportunity ("I have a means of income"); services ("I have access
to basic services, such as power, water and sanitation"); and social
well-being ("My family and I have access to health care and education").
Each of these questions was rated on a five-point scale from -50
(e.g., "I have no income" for economic opportunity) to +50 ("My
income exceeds my basic needs"). For Iraq to be headed in the right
direction - i.e., capable of being self-sustaining, the Center for
Strategic and International Studies figured all five questions would
have to be in the positive zone.
What they found was that all five questions, taken cumulatively
from June 2003 through July 2004, were still in negative zones.
Security was in the "danger zone" on the four-part quadrant, while
economic opportunity and services were on the cusp between danger
and the "gray zone." Governance and participation and social well-being
were in the gray zone, withsocial well-being almost into the "viable
zone." On none of the questions was there "a sustained trajectory
toward the tipping point or end state."
At the same time, however, the report says Iraqis are still patient
and, after Saddam, don't have unrealistically high expectations.
By and large they approve of their new security and police forces
and believe that with its oil resources Iraq's long-term future
still looks positive.
SECURITY REMAINS
THE PREDOMINANT ISSUE
But, as the report notes, "Security continues to be the predominant
issue, hampering reconstruction efforts on all other fronts. Crime
is rampant, and, along with fears of bombings, militias' roadblocks,
banditry on the highways and regular kidnappings, continues to impact
Iraqis' ability to go about their lives with any semblance of normalcy."
Security problems impact all the other measures of well-being negatively.
For example, jobs are scarce in the private sector and those who
choose to work for foreign companies fear attacks by insurgents.
Major cities still get only sporadic electricity service and "sewage
systems are worse than they were under Saddam." Education showed
improvement at first but has been declining recently as kids drop
out to seek extra income for their families.
Partisans of the war, especially in the U.S. government, complain
that the media tell only the negative side of things, focusing on
attacks, bombings and setbacks.
However, this survey of multiple media sources found that "the
media [have] not been significantly more negative than other sources
of information on the issues of security, governance and participation
and economic opportunity.
"The media have been regularly more negative than other sources
about services and social well-being issues. But in those areas,
the media [are] arguably more balanced than public sources, in that
[the media] tend to include descriptions of the impact of security
and reports of the Iraqi perspective."
MOST VOTERS' MINDS
ARE ALREADY MADE UP
So the evidence indicates things are not going especially well
in Iraq and probably worse than most Americans think.
Will this affect how people vote in November?
James Coyle, director of the Center for Global Education at Chapman
University and an old State Department hand, doesn't think so. "Unless
there is a tragic and overwhelming catastrophe, or peace unexpectedly
breaks out," he told me, "the effect of the war has been felt already.
People made up their minds some time ago about the war and how that
will affect their choice of candidate."
I'm not sure. The war could still have an as yet unfelt impact
on the presidential election. But you won't catch me making hard-and-fast
predictions.